| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Recluse
Spam God
Karma: +16 / -30 + -
Posts: 5009 (?)
Joined: 20 Jun 2005
Gender: 
Job: Porn Star
Status: Offline
|
Ok, for now, lets ignore how we got to Iraq. I believe that history will dictate better the pro's and con's of it, the truths and lies, and all that. So we're there. It is well known that we have caused civilian casualties. Why do people today look so horribly upon a few thousand deaths(we're not counting the tens of thousands killed by the terrorists, just what American troops have done) when 200,000 civilians died to make Japan surrender in WW2, and it was ok? Why do Americans get blamed for a terrorist blowing up 100 civilians in a marketplace? And why do more and more Americans believe that terrorism is being blown out of proportion, when history shows us just how long, and far reaching, conflicts such as the Israel/Palestine and Ireland/Britain can last?
I know, I'm stupid, but I just can't stop getting mad about people not realizing that some things can be avoided, while others simply can not. :/ |
_________________
Changed cuase pyro hates big pictures  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
YBM
Spam King
Karma: +9 / -7 + -
Posts: 2107 (?)
Joined: 02 Dec 2002
Location: Holland
Gender:
Job: Gynecologist
Status: Offline
|
| This could have been avoided by not thinking it could. A better organized starting force, like the world instead of just america, would have made a little difference at least. |
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cgi bin laden
Super Spammer
Karma: +3 / -4 + -
Posts: 1120 (?)
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Location: Canada
Gender:
Job: Public Masturbator
Status: Offline
|
| Knee jerk reaction. Your media needs blood, your people smell it and your government has to act on it - or risk not being re-elected. Until money is taken out of American (well most) politics, the world will continue to be a complete shit-pile |
_________________
wow that's gay
i dont give a fuck if it's "nicely done"
it's fuckin gay
who ever did it, you are the biggest bitch in pb
.... ah but i agree, that does own me
nice work, faggot
now u can masturbate to ur work
fag |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wtf
Super Spammer
Karma: +13 / -16 + -
Posts: 605 (?)
Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Location: Australia
Gender:
Job: Porn Star
Status: Offline
|
The americans (ie, the government and military) were too arrogant; they thought they could just bomb the shit out of iraq and that would make everyone there too scared to argue with them. They thought they could control and provide security to the whole country. They thought they could replace Saddam's regime with a regime they engineered and the people would cheer them for it and not view it as a puppet regime. They thought people would believe thier claim that it has nothing to do with oil. They apparently spent little effort trying to understand Iraqis themselves, they thought they could just impose American systems which work well for America and expect them to work well for Iraq. They thought people would believe all their rediculous claims (WMD, Saddam providing support for al-quiada) and not suspect thier ulterior motives (Oil, political and military presence in the region, fat profits for GWB buddies).
The defintion of a terrorist has become too blurred. To me, it appears to refer to anyone who disagrees with America. This is damaging because firstly it disenchants anyone who happens to disagree with America but hitherto had no intention of resorting to violence over it and secondly because it draws attention away from the people who do intend to blow themselves up over it. The americans should be focusing on the people who are a threat to them and let the others who just want a say in what happens in thier own country have a say in what happen in thier own country.
I believe that part of GWB's plan was to put his miltary out as a target to the real terrorists so that they don't attack civilians back at home. I think this is a smart move. What he didn't need to do was put that target in and around ordinary iraqis. He could have disposed Saddam and then withdrawn to the oil fields and critical oil infrastructure and let the iraqis fight it out for control of the streets. That way he still provides a target to the real terrorists who just want to be killed in the name of Allah but he also doesn't look as much like an occupier.
Yes, he has to admit oil was at least part of his motivation to invade iraq, but seriously, who believes it wasn't? Throw in some defence for some critical civilian infrastructure (hospitals, power stations, etc) and point out that oil revenues are being used to rebuild the country and are being distributed far more equitably than Saddam ever did and all of a sudden he becomes the good guy to orinary iraqis.
This would also result in far less American casaulties because his troops are dug into defensive positions rather than out walking/driving the streets with giant "Ambush Me" signs above thier heads. The jihadists still get to die in the name of Allah. |
_________________
* if you are a minor and I asked or enticed you to do anything illegal in this post I was joking and should not be taken seriously under any circumstances |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Recluse
Spam God
Karma: +16 / -30 + -
Posts: 5009 (?)
Joined: 20 Jun 2005
Gender:
Job: Porn Star
Status: Offline
|
| i don't know how well that would have worked though, considering that the terrorists are already bombing civilians. Sitting in the oil fields might have worked, but only if they didn't attack civilians anyways, otherwise it defeats the purpose. I do wish though that more reporting was done on how much of the oil money is going back into the country itself, no-one ever talks about it. |
_________________
Changed cuase pyro hates big pictures |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wtf
Super Spammer
Karma: +13 / -16 + -
Posts: 605 (?)
Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Location: Australia
Gender:
Job: Porn Star
Status: Offline
|
The terrorists are bombing civilians to undermine US attempts to provide security. These people aren't jihadi terrorists they are struggle for control of the country terrorists, if the US weren't trying to control the county they would be seen as combatants in a civil war and not terrorists. Just like the Taliban was when they were fighting the northern alliance. Furthermore they would be able to fight directly against other people vying for control of the country and not have to resort to terrorist (guerilla) tactics because they have a massive army standing in between them.
A civil war was inevitable the minute the US destroyed Saddam's regime and left a power vacuum. The iraqis are never going to accept a regime created by the Americans simply because it was created by the Americans. They consider democracy one big lie and I can see why, I don't neccesarily agree but I respect thier opinion and thier right to have one that is different to mine. Iraqi politics has been worked out through tribal warfare for as long as any iraqi can remember, it is arrogant to think they will change because "our system is better" because evidently they don't think so. If the iraqi army invaded my country and started telling us we were doing it all wrong and forced us to do it their way, I'd sign up to fight them too.
All US forces can do in iraq is delay this civil war. Oh, and maybe bolster the side they want to win when they leave. No wonder half the world hates them, they meddle in things that really just isn't their business in order to further thier own interests. Give Iraq to the iraqi people. The people who created what it is (was) and the people who intend to live thier and create its future. |
_________________
* if you are a minor and I asked or enticed you to do anything illegal in this post I was joking and should not be taken seriously under any circumstances |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Recluse
Spam God
Karma: +16 / -30 + -
Posts: 5009 (?)
Joined: 20 Jun 2005
Gender:
Job: Porn Star
Status: Offline
|
| So you're saying it'd be better if we left now, or just left those areas and retracted the troops back to the fields and hospitals etc? And what would happen if the government that the iraqis made was not good, just leave em be to their own ways still? |
_________________
Changed cuase pyro hates big pictures |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wtf
Super Spammer
Karma: +13 / -16 + -
Posts: 605 (?)
Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Location: Australia
Gender:
Job: Porn Star
Status: Offline
|
That is exactly what I'm saying. And I'm saying we let the iraqis determine what a "good" government is.
If you wanna go around playing world decider of good governance, you get no credibilty when you only feel it neccesary to do it in places and in ways which suit your own interests.
Zimbabwe, Sudan, Nigeria, shit most of Africa, half of South America, Russia, China. They have "bad" governments, are you saying troops should be sent there to "fix" those governments?
"By the people" is just as important, if not more important than "For the people" because in the real world "By the people" is at least possible. |
_________________
* if you are a minor and I asked or enticed you to do anything illegal in this post I was joking and should not be taken seriously under any circumstances |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Recluse
Spam God
Karma: +16 / -30 + -
Posts: 5009 (?)
Joined: 20 Jun 2005
Gender:
Job: Porn Star
Status: Offline
|
| What I'm trying to figure out though is, if we left them to their ways, and they put in someone who is as bad, or maybe worse, then sadaam was, and even more of a threat to us or his neighbors, is that still an ok outcome? |
_________________
Changed cuase pyro hates big pictures |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wtf
Super Spammer
Karma: +13 / -16 + -
Posts: 605 (?)
Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Location: Australia
Gender:
Job: Porn Star
Status: Offline
|
Threat to you?! what are they going to do, find a navy, army and airforce somewhere under a rock in Basra? Don't be silly.
If you mean the threat posed by terrorists? Invading countries and changing thier government isn't going to fix that, all that will do is annoy more previously peaceful people and turn them into jihadists.
his neighbours. lol.
If you wanted to help people, instead of paying upteen trillion dollars to conduct a counter-productive war. You could send them a tenth of that in jelly beans and you'd help more people. To borrow from Guns & Roses, this war is about feeding the rich whilst burying the poor. Capitalism at its finest, I have no idea why the Iraqis aren't embracing it. Probably because they aren't rich. |
_________________
* if you are a minor and I asked or enticed you to do anything illegal in this post I was joking and should not be taken seriously under any circumstances |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Recluse
Spam God
Karma: +16 / -30 + -
Posts: 5009 (?)
Joined: 20 Jun 2005
Gender:
Job: Porn Star
Status: Offline
|
Not needing armies to be a threat. Just takes 1 deal with a terrorist organization to be a threat. The one thing saddaam did was to keep most everyone out of his country, good or bad, because in 1 way or another letting them in would threaten his power, however while doing that he was murdering his own people, so getting him out was needed, but with him gone, either we go in full force and try to mold the government, or the vaccum gets filled by the very people we're trying to keep out.
This has actually gone off the real question though, why is it ok to kill 200,000 civilians to turn the tide of a war, but every civilian casualty today is front page news? Would it have been better if we just nuked Iraq, and then went in to rebuild? |
_________________
Changed cuase pyro hates big pictures |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wtf
Super Spammer
Karma: +13 / -16 + -
Posts: 605 (?)
Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Location: Australia
Gender:
Job: Porn Star
Status: Offline
|
You appear to me to be using gyrating logic. You state that all it takes is one deal with a terrorist organisation to be a threat. Ok I'll accept that. Then you state that Saddam didn't let anyone in good or bad so that seems to rule out him doing deals with terrorists and being a threat. So to justify offing him you say he was murdering his own people so he had to be taken out. Ok I'll accept that too. Then you ask why isn't ok to nuke those people he was murdering to end the war which was started to stop Saddam murdering them?! Whilst also arguing that US should continue occupying iraq lest the terorists that were never a threat before the invasion become a threat.
But I'll forget all that and focus on the question.
World war 2 had a clear objective. Force the Japanese into unconditional surrender. The Japanese weren't even retreating let alone considering surrender even though it had been clear for some time that they had no chance of winning themselves. They were sending kamkaze pilots on futile suicide missions and were making it very clear they intended on fighting to the death for the sake of it. Therefore the only way the US could win the war was to kill all of them. The nuclear bomb presented the most efficient way of achiving that. Fortunately, once it became clear to the Japanese that the US had the will and the means to kill all of them they finally saw some sense and surrendered.
How is nuking the iraqi citizens going to achieve victory for the US in Iraq? Perhaps you could start by defining what victory would be in Iraq. |
_________________
* if you are a minor and I asked or enticed you to do anything illegal in this post I was joking and should not be taken seriously under any circumstances |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Recluse
Spam God
Karma: +16 / -30 + -
Posts: 5009 (?)
Joined: 20 Jun 2005
Gender:
Job: Porn Star
Status: Offline
|
Victory: A decent government (I favor democracy, but if they can make something else work, and it's fair to Sunni and Shiite alike, then more power to them) A country that can protect itself, and a country that can economically sustain itself.
I wondered if it would have been better to use nukes, not really advocating their use. I'm just trying to say that we nuked the Japanese citizens in the name of war, but when some innocent bystander gets shot because they were in a crossfire, or refused to stop, or just went shopping at the wrong time, people do not look at it the same. These terrorists that we're fighting over there, they are our enemies, and they are also Iraq's enemies, so why is it bad that we're trying to kill them, and an innocent dies, when it was ok in Japan? Why don't people realize that if the terrorists stopped, so would all the innocent loss of life? They don't ever tell the terrorists to leave a country which most of them do not belong to, only tell the Americans to leave. |
_________________
Changed cuase pyro hates big pictures |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wtf
Super Spammer
Karma: +13 / -16 + -
Posts: 605 (?)
Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Location: Australia
Gender:
Job: Porn Star
Status: Offline
|
It was bad in Japan, but the consequences of not doing it were a lot worse. It was brutal but it caused Japan to surrender. They were trying to kill civilians because it was the most efficient way for them to win.
Do you reckon killing innocent civilians in Iraq is going to help or hinder the effort to achieve a decent government? When an innocent iraqi dies its a terrible senseless accident. Nobody benefits. What is so bad is how often this happens. It looks your guys are using sledge-hammers to crack walnuts. I'm not there, that is probably unfair, but thats how it looks. The poor Iraqis are sick of being blown up, decapitated and shot, I can see how they would see it that way.
And how do you know they don't tell the terrorists to leave? Say they wanted the terrorists to leave? How would you suggest to them they get the terrorists to leave? Ask them? Take up arms and fight them? |
_________________
* if you are a minor and I asked or enticed you to do anything illegal in this post I was joking and should not be taken seriously under any circumstances |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Recluse
Spam God
Karma: +16 / -30 + -
Posts: 5009 (?)
Joined: 20 Jun 2005
Gender:
Job: Porn Star
Status: Offline
|
| I'm sure they probably try, but not the rest of the world. The rest of the world cries out for us to leave, not the terrorists. And I'm sure the Iraqis are tired of getting blown up, shot and decapitated, but 90% of those are done by the terrorists, not americans. We go there to help them, and to fight us the terrorists blow up 150 people in a market on a saunday, so everyone cries for us to leave. htf does that make sense? Most of the terrorists aren't even iraqis, so they can't say they're "defending their country" either. |
_________________
Changed cuase pyro hates big pictures |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wtf
Super Spammer
Karma: +13 / -16 + -
Posts: 605 (?)
Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Location: Australia
Gender:
Job: Porn Star
Status: Offline
|
The reason the people want you to leave is because they, like myself, beleive that Iraq is not going to get better whilst you're still there. You might be trying to help but they don't want your help. You were never invited. Your reasons for being there constantly change. The world, let alone iraq, does not trust your intentions for being there. The iraqis don't think that democracy is as great as you do. It is as big an insult to iraqi national pride as when the king of england was bossing you guys around back in 1775. You are not looking at this from the point of view of an iraqi, which is arrogant. Do you really expect an iraqi to think that you're trying to help?
The terrorists are bad to the iraqis too but they also speak the same language, share the same religion and look somewhat the same. Your guys drive around in high tech war machines, carry the most efficient weapons around, look different, act different, call in bombs from the sky, kick in doors at night, detain first ask questions later then, in isolated cases, abuse detainees. Who do you think terrorises the iraqi people the most?
When are you going to stop being so arrogant and see that no matter how genuine your intentions to help this uninvited, unwanted help is only ever going to be seen as self-interested meddling by the iraqis. You were never honest and genuine in the first place, why would they trust you now? I certainly don't.
After being there for 4 years and the average iraqi's life is now that much worse off than before you came your chance of gaining their trust that you want to help them has been to blown to pieces. You're government doesn't fuck up this hard. They must have seen this coming and therefore must have wanted it to happen. If not, you're country is being run by idiots. |
_________________
* if you are a minor and I asked or enticed you to do anything illegal in this post I was joking and should not be taken seriously under any circumstances |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
qardinal
Bored Noob
Karma: +0 / -0 + -
Posts: 11 (?)
Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Gender:
Job: Unemployed
Status: Offline
|
| liberals are idiots and know nothing and that's why all of this happens they want this country to fall because they're well known to hate it |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Holden
Uber Noob
Karma: +1 / -3 + -
Posts: 59 (?)
Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Location: chachak thats near kragujevac
Gender:
Job: Nerd
Status: Offline
|
| american policy sucks...f*****g global terrorists...plague on them! |
_________________
I am a shrubber. My name is Roger the Shrubber. I arrange, design, and sell shrubberies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nitsuj914
Noob
Karma: +0 / -0 + -
Posts: 8 (?)
Joined: 25 May 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Gender:
Job: Fairy Queen
Status: Offline
|
| qardinal wrote: |
| liberals are idiots and know nothing and that's why all of this happens they want this country to fall because they're well known to hate it |
| Holden wrote: |
| american policy sucks...f*****g global terrorists...plague on them! |
I thought this was supposed to be serious discussion, not bitching and moaning, without backing up what your saying with any real facts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wtf
Super Spammer
Karma: +13 / -16 + -
Posts: 605 (?)
Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Location: Australia
Gender:
Job: Porn Star
Status: Offline
|
True that Nitsuj914.
I think Holden made a point though. I can't quite make sense of what qardinal wrote. What are your opinions on the subject? |
_________________
* if you are a minor and I asked or enticed you to do anything illegal in this post I was joking and should not be taken seriously under any circumstances |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
